-- Focus of the case 
The opposed trademark is original and it is clearly different from the cited trademark in terms of overall composition and pronunciation. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff occurred relatively long time ago, it does not enjoy the reputation in the current. There are the similar trademarks exist in some related classes.
-- Introduction of the Case     

The plaintiff Wuhan City Keda Yunshi Nursing Materials Co., Ltd. sued the defendant, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ("the TRAB") and the the third party Shanghai Saishibao Construction Anchoring Materials Co., Ltd ("Saishibao"). concerning the administrative dispute of the trademark opposition review, Chispo’s litigation team represented the third party in the first and second instance litigation. After trial by the Beijing High Court, the First Intermediate People's Court upheld the judgment of rejecting the plaintiff's litigation request and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal request.
Saishibao filed an application of the trademark involved to the Trademark Office on June 28, 2010, which was designated on goods of "Industrial Adhesives; vinyl; industrial Adhesives, etc" in Class 1, the application number is 8432020.
The application date of the cited trademark No. 4361728 was November 15, 2004, and it was approved for use on the goods of "industrial adhesives; curing agents; polyurethanes, etc" in Class 1.
The plaintiff had filed the request of opposition, review of the opposition and the lawsuit against the opposed trademark within the prescribed time. 
The Trademark Office, the TRAB and the court all approved the registration of the opposed trademark on the grounds that the applied trademark and the cited trademark do not constitute similar trademarks in respect of the similar goods.

-- Gist of the Judgment
The court of second instance held that the goods designated by the opposed trademark and the goods approved for use by the cited trademark constitute the same or similar goods. The opposed trademark is a combination of the letters "HELIX" and the Chinese characters "喜利士", while the cited trademark consists of the Chinese characters "大力士". Although there are certain similarities in the text composition, "大力士" is an inherent Chinese vocabulary. "喜力士" which is a coined vocabulary, is significant different from the cited trademark in terms of connotation, and it is easily be regarded by the public as the Chinese transliteration of "HELIX" being used in combination with "HELIX". Although the cited trademark has a certain degree of popularity, the two trademarks will not be confused and misunderstood in the condition of the significant difference between two trademarks.

--Lawyer's Comments
In this case, the plaintiff provided a large amount of evidence to prove that it has a high reputation in the field of marble glue, in the meantime, they also provided the court with precedents to prove that the court and the TRAB had refused to register the trademark named "X力士". The highlight of this case is that it highlights the particularity of trademark examination. The trademark appeal follows the principle of case-by-case trial. The disputed trademarks in different cases and the evidence of individual cases are different. In the meantime, our country is not the country of case law, the previous case is only the court case of reference, not the basis of the judgment. In this case, there is a clear difference between the filing trademark and the opposed trademark. If it is only because the plaintiff has a high reputation to prohibit the use of the trademark "X力士" on similar goods, it is undoubtedly an excessive protection of the plaintiff’s trademark rights , which wasted limited trademark resources.